Skip to main content

The F-word and a training session

1.  I'm talking about fun, of course. I just had a look at Philippe Watrelot's blog on education news in France and he refers to the claim that there is too little pleasure in French schooling, especially beyond the primary level. School is too boring. Work = boring.

http://philippe-watrelot.blogspot.com/2011/10/revue-de-presse-du-mercredi-5-octobre.html

Hold that thought.

2. I recently had a conversation with a former colleague who is a PE specialist working in higher education. He was having a lively debate with a colleague overseas about whether "having fun" could be a viable objective for a lesson. Should we have as a lesson aim "to have fun"? My friend thought you could, whilst his colleague felt it might be a desirable outcome of the lesson, but should not be an aim in itself.

3. We had a training session on "good to outstanding" yesterday. It was well-led and thought-provoking. We watched teachers on video and talked about what was good and what could be even better. Good bread-and-butter stuff. We should do it more often. The "fun" word was not used, but there was an idea put across that a feature of outstanding lessons is that students should be working with the teacher, with each other and that they should be happy in their learning. The really good teacher is often able to create this atmosphere in the classroom. Education is done WITH children, not TO them, was a phrase used.

These tenuously linked points make me think that, firstly, we try very hard in the UK to make lessons stimulating and relevant. We train our teachers rather well, have systems in place which encourage teachers to question their practice and to get better, and we often work hard on the details of running lessons where pupils want to learn and take pleasure in learning. Many teachers do try to create pleasurable activities, "fun" activities, if you will. Language teachers work especially hard at this, maybe because it is a challenge to make language learning palatable to many children.

So, if I can try and bring this together....

I'm not sure we should try too hard to make lessons fun. A really good (I am not going to use the Ofsted word) lesson should be stimulating, challenging, preferably enjoyable, led by a teacher who is firm, friendly and fair (FFF - I only learned this last night). There should a humane, supportive atmosphere, skilled interventions, pace, variety, structure where appropriate, maybe some humour, but the lesson need not be fun. The best lessons I have watched involve students helping each other, a good deal of communication between teacher and students, as well as between students. The teacher is checking knowledge, referring to objectives, building on prior skills and maintaining a safe and productive atmosphere. Lots of learning is taking place in a warm, cooperative environment.

I came out of our training session a fraction more certain about what a really good lesson is and taught a fraction better today. I wonder how much staff development there is in the French system. How often are teachers given the chance to watch others practise? How often do they have structured opportunities to consider best practice?

Do they need their own Ofsted to help raise the bar in the classroom?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g